QUE ES LO QUE TIENE OBAMA QUE LOS OBAMUNISTAS SE HACEN CRIMINALES?

THE PROFESSOR OF THE MASACRE OF UNIV. ALAMABA IS A RADICAL LEFT OBAMUNIST.

The Times Finds A Lone Crazed Assassin

By Peter Collier On February 22, 2010

The New York Times’ front page profile [2] on Saturday of professor Amy Bishop, who allegedly executed three University of Alabama Biology Department colleagues after being denied tenure, appears to be an exhaustively reported piece based on “numerous interviews with colleagues and others who knew her.” It portrays Bishop as violent and unpredictable, rejected by Harvard because of mediocre work and shunned by a series of neighbors and co-workers scared off by the suppressed rage that kept bubbling up to the surfaces of her social life, and also someone who may already have gotten away with the murder of her brother years earlier possibly because of her mother’s political connections in her home town of Braintree, Mass.

“Between brilliance and rage” is the caption of the photo of Bishop used by the Times for the story, although the piece makes no case for the former. But is this all the news that is fit to print about the perpetrator of this murder spree in academe? What about the “family source” who told the Boston Herald that Bishop was,

What about the student who called her a“socialist” [5]? What about one report that Bishop complained about a rule issued by University of Alabama administrators regarding underclassmen living on campus because she believed it was destructive of “diversity.” And what about the crowning irony of this case, whether or not she made this complaint: that two of the colleagues she allegedly killed were black and one was South Asian, and that Bishop thus wiped out the 14 person Biology department’s entire diversity in one burst of gunfire?

Considering the politics of Bishop’s ressentiment might have helped fill out the Times’ portrait of a psychopathic time bomb who had already gone off several times in her disordered life on her way to the Big Explosion on February 12 in Huntsville. There is no doubt, as the blogosphere has already noted, that the paper would have pursued even the vaguest hint that Bishop had been a fan of Glenn Beck or was a Tea Party fellow traveler as a major story line. For the Grey Lady, only the politics of the Right is personal.

Fox has unearthed tapes of Obama Muslim Envoy Rashad Hussain telling audiences that Muslim Sharia Law should be imposed world-wide. Hussain and Obama first denied any such remarks. Then Hussain said the remarks were from his daughter. Then the White House denied any such remarks could be attributed to anyone in the White House. Today Fox reported that Hussain/The White House tried to go back and scrub these remarks from the record. Today Fox aired the tapes, proving that Hussain is a radical Muslim who encourages the adoption of Sharia Law as a goal of global Jihad.

Remember “Not Me”? He was the famous invisible cartoon gremlin in the newspaper comic strip “The Family Circus.” Whenever toys were left on the floor or other school-age disasters struck, the kids in the comic pointed their fingers at “Not Me.” Today, “Tea Party” is the juvenile left’s new “Not Me” — an all-purpose scapegoat for every crime and disaster.

Last Thursday, a disturbed pilot flew a small plane into an Austin, Texas, office complex that contained an Internal Revenue Service office. Several workers in the building were injured, and Joseph Andrew Stack, the pilot, was killed in the crash. Local authorities suspect he set his house on fire — from which his wife and daughter escaped — before taking off on his deadly journey. Investigators found a Web posting, identified as Stack’s “suicide manifesto,” in which he railed against tax laws, inequity, government and crony capitalism. He also targeted “puppet” George W. Bush, murderous health care insurers and the pharmaceutical industry.

The “manifesto” ended:

The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.

This nutball had deadly grudges that transcended partisan lines. But within minutes of the story breaking, a furious left-wing blogger at the popular Daily Kos website — where countless Democratic leaders have guest-posted — fumed: “Teabagger terrorist attack on IRS building.” The article immediately cast blame on the anti-tax Tea Party movement: “After months of threats on the United States government, and government institutions, the Anti-Government forces known as the teabaggers have struck with their first 911 (sic) inspired terrorist attack.”

At the eponymous mega-website of Arianna Huffington, a 2,000-plus comment thread was filled with allusions to “teabaggers”:

I would bet he has a membership card to teabag nation and the Glenn Beck fan club!

Tea bag bomb.

Good to see natural selection still works! Tea party Unite!

This guy sounds just like a teabagger.

Oh please. This has tea bags dripping all over it.

I hope teabaggers are proud!! …

Great opening day for CPAC (the Conservative Political Action Conference) isn’t it??

This guy sounds like a Tea Partier first class! Maybe that movement is more DANGEROUS to our freedoms than they let on! Be afraid America, BE VERY AFRAID!

He was a Tea Party Terrorist.

In the early aftermath of the suicidal pilot’s attack, there was no evidence that Stack belonged to a Tea Party organization. In any case, no law-abiding Tea Party group would ever condone what he did. But it didn’t stop the haters from immediately smearing advocates of limited government. And it’s just the latest in a long line of calculated attempts to paint the vast majority of peaceful Tea Party activists as terrorist threats to civil society.

This week, absurd liberal pundits and bloggers also tried to connect the tragic University of Alabama-Huntsville murders to the Tea Party movement. No matter that the alleged killer, Amy Bishop, was an Obama-worshiping academic who repeatedly got a soft-on-crime pass. Or that Democratic Rep. William Delahunt of Massachusetts was the former prosecutor involved in dropping charges against Bishop in the deadly shooting of her teenage brother. Or that liberal-dominated campus officials apparently looked the other way in response to Bishop’s several red-flag flashes of violence leading up to the U of A shootings.

Tea Party-bashers claimed that the murders were a manifestation of racist conservative influence on the American landscape. Reuters Foundation Fellow Jonathan Curiel picked up the theme: “The ‘results’ that the Tea Party movement envisions include less government — and less of Obama.”

Curiel bemoaned the rejection of a post-racial society by tying together the Alabama massacre and the rise of the Tea Party movement more explicitly. Proof of anti-Obama bigotry, he wrote, could be found in “last week’s shooting in Alabama, where a disgruntled white professor murdered three minority professors; and the growing success of the Tea Party movement, which is overwhelmingly white and increasing (sic) vocal in its violent dislike of the nation’s first black president.”

The same warped worldview blamed Tea Party conservatives for Kentucky census worker Bill Sparkman’s insurance-scam-inspired suicide and for Holocaust Museum shooter James Von Brunn’s rampage (despite his published rants against Fox News).

The smear merchants, of course, are simply following Rahm Emanuel’s advice to exploit every crisis. Pointing fingers at the Tea Party gremlin demonizes the left’s most potent political opponents. This is the blame-gamers’ ultimate agenda: criminalizing dissent.

The Collins Report today notes that Wenzel Strategies, a well thought of, and of course accurate, pollster, reported the above. This is stupendous and when supported by subsequent polls will rock the foundations of the Democrats. Perhaps I should write “further rock” as the entire liberal structure is already precarious.

Blacks, who voted for President Obama in record numbers are now divided 62/38 believable. That is a thirty point drop among a group that is as essential as air to national Dems and all Dems in tight races.Native Spanish speakers, who also bought President Obama’s “hope and change”, are now divided 50/50 on believability. The Dem/Libs cannot disregard these numbers absent a true death wish.

Once the leader of anything loses credibility among his most loyal followers, it is close to over. The leader simply cannot convince anyone that “things will be better” or “…it is the Republican’s fault”. These bromides now have no resonance and sound as trite as they are.

It is not time to hire a hall for the wake, but it is time to bear down, work harder, and for the sake of our children cast the Dems out of the Temple…for good.

Re: Aunque usted no lo crea, Eric Holder Must Be an Honorary Member of Al Queda

Why else would the Justice Department contain nine ... yes, nine ... appointees that once either represented or advocated for Guantanamo detainees? That’s about as brilliant as posting online the Cliff Notes of a trillion-dollar wealth share bill you know you don’t have enough votes for, just before you put on a sham puppet show in the name of “bipartisanship,” not that I’m crying or anything.

The surprising admission came three months after Republican Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa asked Attorney General Eric Holder for a list of names of Obama DOJ appointees who had been involved in legal work for Gitmo prisoners.Holder, in a letter to Grassley, admitted that nine of the agency’s appointees had done some kind of work on behalf of terror suspects.“To the best of our knowledge, during their employment prior to joining the government, only five of the lawyers who serve as political appointees in those components represented detainees,” said Holder in the letter, which is dated Feb. 18.

“Four others either contributed to amicus briefs in detainee-related cases or were otherwise involved in advocacy on behalf of detainees.”

Score one more zero for Holder and his boss, Robbing Hood, the captain of transparency, and his merry band of liars.

Regardless of anything Barack Obama has said there will be federal funding for abortions in his new healthcare scheme and this is one of the major problems Americans have with it.

An analysis of the new healthcare bill, posted by the White House, indicates Obama has no intension of cutting federal funding for abortions in this latest “new” version of healthcare.

The new plan will provide $11 billion to expand Community Health Centers that will certainly do abortions. Apparently Obama and his Party believe Americans especially Pro Lifers are fools.

The projected price tag for aborting millions of American babies has actually been increased by $2.5 billion with funding not only for staffing but for the construction of new “Centers” as well.

The hopes of many Pro Lifers that the Stupak-Pitts amendment would keep federally funded abortions out of Obama’s scheme have proved groundless because there is no mention of it in the new text. Clearly, if this new bill passes and becomes law we will be paying for the slaughter of innocent babies under the guise of “better health.”

America is growing more, not less Pro Life

The more Barack Obama pushes socialized healthcare plans on America, the more his popularity falls. Rasmussen tells us just 41% of voters favor socialized healthcare and 56% are against it. Fully 45% “strongly oppose” the plan.

The Left would never admit this but there is strong evidence to suggest that there is a correlation between the recent dramatic shift in public attitudes against abortion and the growing resistance to a healthcare scheme that will include tax payer funded abortions.

For the first time in many years the number of Americans who want abortion legal in “every case” is below 50% at 47% which has dropped from 54% in just the past year.

America wants Congress to start over on healthcareSixty one percent of Americans want the entire plan scrapped and Congress to start over with a clean slate. The idea of Obama and his Party ramming through a single payer socialized medicine scheme is political suicide for them, but he doesn’t seem to care.

A majority of Americans don’t believe Obama’s healthcare scheme will pass this year and who can disagree?

What did you do to be worthy of your American freedoms yesterday? What will you do today and what do you plan to do tomorrow?

Yesterday’s Rasmussen Presidential Index had Obama at –19

This day in history February 241803 The Supreme Court ruled in Marbury v. Madison that any act of Congress which conflicts with the Constitution is null and void.

Why is the POTUS Ignoring Concerns About His Anti-Catholic Religious Adviser ?2/24/2010

On March 17, 2009, two weeks before his appointment to President’s Advisory Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships, Harry Knox published a statement on the Human Rights Campaign Web site in reaction to Pope Benedict XVI’s remarks concerning condoms and AIDS in Africa. The statement partly reads: “The Pope’s statement that condoms don’t help control the spread of HIV, but rather condoms increase infection rates, is hurting people in the name of Jesus. …The pope’s rejection of scientifically proven prevention methods is forcing Catholics in Africa to choose between their faith and the health of their entire community. Jesus was about helping the marginalized and downtrodden, not harming them further.”

Agree or disagree with the Pope’s stance on condoms, that statement was justifiably offensive to Catholics. Especially when you consider that Papal Infallibility is a basic tenet of Catholicism.

It was surprising that someone who had such harsh views about the leader of a major world religion would be appointed to the President’s religious advisory council.

Eleven months later Knox was asked the same question. One would think that almost a year in the political White House world would make him a bit more tolerant, but that didn’t happen. he repeated his statement prompting House Minority Leader Boehner to send the President a letter calling for Knox to lose his ***********///////********//////****** in the Obama White House. The White House has not responded to Boehner, not even to explain his ***********///////********//////******.

Boehner said at a Feb. 3 press briefing that he believes Knox is an “anti-Catholic bigot” who should not be a presidential adviser. “He should resign. And I have agreed to sign a letter [calling for that],” said Boehner. “We can’t have in the White House an anti-Catholic bigot, and that’s what this gentleman appears to be.”

...Last May, 22 prominent Catholics wrote to President Obama asking him to remove Knox from the advisory council because of his anti-Catholic comments. One of the signatories of that letter was House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio). Separately, House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R-Ind.) was the first to issue a statement calling for Knox to resign from the council.

On Feb. 2 of this year, CNSNews.com asked Knox, during an event at the National Press Club, if he still stands by his assertion that Pope Benedict XVI is “hurting people in the name of Jesus” because of his ***********///////********//////****** on condoms. Knox said, “I do.”

CNSNews.com asked Boehner about the matter on Feb. 3. That is when Boehner said he believed Knox was an “anti-Catholic bigot” and renewed his call for Knox to resign.On Monday, CNSNews.com asked White House spokesman Robert Gibbs about Boehner’s call for Knox to resign because of his anti-Catholic remarks.

“I don’t—not surprisingly, I do not have anything on that,” Gibbs said. “I’d be happy to have one of these guys take a look at it.”

CNSNews.com followed up immediately on Monday with an e-mail to Shin Inouye, the White House spokesman on issues regarding the Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships initiative, asking for a response to Boehner’s call for Knox to resign, whether the White House disagreed with Knox’s anti-papal comment, and if the White House still supported Knox’s appointment to the council.

Last June, when CNSNews.com asked Gibbs about the letter from 22 Catholics asking for Knox’s removal from the council. Gibbs then said that the White House was “comfortable” with all the members of the council.

“I haven’t seen that letter, but the president is comfortable with the makeup of his faith advisory council,” Gibbs said.

This nothing more than another example of the Hubris of this administration. It is disgusting to appoint a hater of one of this country’s major religions to his religious advisory committee, it is even more disgusting to refuse to address the concerns of members of that religious community. If he appoints a Catholic hater today, he could appoint a Baptist or Jew hater tomorrow.

Inasmuch as Obamacare has a snowball's chance in hell of passing (but did you see how much snow they got in hell last week?), everyone is wondering what President Obama is up to by calling Republicans to a televised Reykjavik summit this week to discuss socializing health care.

At least they served beer at the last White House summit this stupid and pointless.

If the president is serious about passing nationalized health care, he ought to be meeting with the Democrats, not the Republicans.

Republicans can't stop the Democrats from socializing health care: They are a tiny minority party in both the House and the Senate. (Note to America: You might want to keep this in mind next time you go to the polls.

As the Democratic base has been hysterically pointing out, both the House and the Senate have already passed national health care bills. Either body could vote for the other's bill, and -- presto! -- Obama would have a national health care bill, replete with death panels, abortion coverage and lots and lots of new government commissions!

Sadly, as the president's Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has noted, the Democratic base is "@#$%^ retarded."

In fact, you might say that the nation is in a boiling cauldron of rage against it. Consequently, a lot of Democrats are suddenly having second thoughts about vast new government commissions regulating every aspect of Americans' medical care.

Obama isn't stupid -- he's not seriously trying to get a health care bill passed. The whole purpose of this public "summit" with the minority party is to muddy up the Republicans before the November elections. You know, the elections Democrats are going to lose because of this whole health care thing.

Right now, Americans are hopping mad, swinging a stick and hoping to hit anyone who so much as thinks about nationalizing health care.

If they could, Americans would cut the power to the Capitol, throw everyone out and try to deport them. (Whereas I say: Anyone in Washington, D.C., who can produce an original copy of a valid U.S. birth certificate should be allowed to stay.)

But the Democrats think it's a good strategy to call the Republicans "The Party of No." When it comes to Obamacare, Americans don't want a party of "No," they want a party of "Hell, No!" or, as Rahm Emanuel might say, "*&^%$#@ No!". It's as if the patient has a minor fever and the Democrats (as doctor in this example) want to cut off his arms and legs. The Republicans want to give the patient two aspirin. "Compromise" means the Republicans agree to amputate only one arm and one leg.

Complaining that Republicans are "obstructionists" is not a damaging charge when most Americans are dying to obstruct the Democrats with a 2-by-4. While you're at it, Democrats, why not call the GOP the "Party of Brave Patriots"?

So Obama's sole objective at the "summit" is to hoodwink Republicans into agreeing with some of his wildly unpopular ideas on national TV. If this were a reality show on NBC, it would be called, "Dateline: To Catch a R.I.N.O."

This shouldn't be hard, inasmuch as he will be talking to elected Republicans. About a third of them were enthusiastically engaging in "bipartisanship" on Obamacare last year -- Chuck Grassley, you know who you are! (That's better than Lindsey Graham, who still wants to compromise.)

And then the American people spoke up.

In town halls and tea parties across the nation, Obama lost the argument with Americans. So now he wants a debating partner who will be less challenging: elected Republicans.

If Republicans were smart, they'd shock the world by sending in one of their most appealing members of Congress, who can speak clearly on health care -- Sen. Jon Kyl, Rep. Steve King or Rep. Ron Paul.Actually, if the Republicans were really smart, they'd send in 14-year-old Jonathan Krohn, who understands the free market better than most people in Washington. Of course, so does my houseplant.

There are other important points Republicans cannot raise often enough -- such as putting scuzzy medical malpractice lawyers like John Edwards out of business. OK, that wasn't fair: Even trial lawyers are almost never as scuzzy as John Edwards. We want to put them all out of business.

But there's really only one idea the Republicans must cling to -- like they're clinging to their guns and religion! -- in order to resist agreeing to something moronic and losing their advantage as Americans' only allies in Washington.

Please, Republicans, remember the free market -- the same free market that gave us cheap cell phones, computers, flat-screen TVs, and stylish, affordable eyeglasses in about an hour.

Congress needs to outlaw state and federal mandates on insurance companies and allow interstate competition in health insurance.

Re: Aunque usted no lo crea, THE USURPER AND THE COURTS

Obama is running out of tricks, and running out of room to derail the legal cases against his usurpation of the Presidency of the United States. His distaste for Americans is even more evident now: taxpayers are footing the bill while Obama uses the Justice Department against Americans, and against the Constitution.

But every day, he is exposed even more, and it is only fitting that whatever past he has catches up to him in real time. He will crack with the increasing pressure, so let’s keep it up. Narcissists cannot stand to be proven wrong, but once the little humpty dumpty falls off the wall, no one will even want to put him back together again.

Hoping to derail the Kerchner v. Obama and Congress case by employing technicalities of law, specifically, the length of the brief submitted by Kerchner, the “Justice” Department lost. By order dated February 22, 2010, the Honorable Circuit Judge Michael A. Chagares on behalf of the Motion’s Panel of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals granted plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file the overlength brief.

From Attorney Apuzzo’s press release:

—This is great news because the case will now continue forward as scheduled. Obama’s and Congress’s opposition brief was initially due on February 22, 2010. The Department of Justice obtained a 14-day extension to file that brief, making the new due date March 8, 2010. After they file their opposition brief, I will then have 14 days within which to file a reply to that brief. All briefs will be posted at this blog and it is my hope that the public will read these briefs so as to stay fully informed on this issue that is critically important not only to my clients but also to our Constitutional Republic.—

The technicalities of law used by Obama’s legal team include the following:

-Length of the brief submitted by Plaintiff Kerchner-Standing and Article III Jurisdiction-The political question-Immunity-dismissal of other cases on the same subject

The Kechner v Obama and Congress case is one of the most meticulously written and researched cases on the subject of Obama’s lack of eligibility.Revolution Radio interviewed Kerchner and Apuzzo on January 20 and the interview can be found here. Read the brief, you will learn immensely.

All of the black-robed justices to date have run for cover of technicality to avoid addressing the case facts. Whether or not the three-judge panel will actually hear the evidence, and allow oral arguments, is a matter of courage. Think about that.

How dare they think about their careers when the national security of the United States is at risk!